Robert Reich was the right guy to follow to last week's jobs summit. Reich has devoted a career to waking America up to economic reality: Capital is liquid and it's flowing away from the U.S. to countries where people are more educated, more efficient and poor. The core of his solution has always been the same: Invest in education, infrastructure and R&D. Then the good jobs will come back.
Reich is the best of liberal economic thinkers. It helps that he's a political scientist, not an economist: he deals with how capitalism actually works, not how it's supposed to work according to ideal models of either the left or right. But like all respectable thinkers of the current era, he restricts himself to a world in which imagining planned, non-capitalist economic progress is off limits.
We, the generations inheriting the messes of the 20th century, need to leave that world behind. We need to start imagining, working out and preparing for a global, coordinated economic transformation on the scale of a world war -- not only to restore jobs to people who had them, but to restore means of making a sustainable living to everyone on Earth. That would mean redirecting something like half of global economic activity for a decade or two to build up not just new infrastructure but whole new industries, and to clear away the ruins of the old.
Markets and decentralized initiative will be the lifeblood of that transformation, but you can't mobilize that many people and resources successfully without centralized leadership and planning. So here's the problem: it's become an article of faith of both right and left that centralized leadership and planning in economics cannot be democratic or accountable, and thus will only lead to disaster. The solutions of our age lie outside a cynical consensus that unites the elites and professional classes of nearly the whole world.
Terrible mistakes, misunderstandings and betrayals of 20th century politics established that cynical consensus. Understandable though it is, it still amounts to giving up on the project of democracy itself. Our generations' mission, should we choose to accept it, is to jump back into that democratic project. Only through it can we succeed at transforming the world economy into something that is serving instead of killing both humanity and the planet.
I realize that talk of "global mobilizations" sounds crazy today. What's important isn't that it becomes part of mainstream thinking right away, but only that a number of us get working on reintroducing the idea. Every mainstream's origins are radical. Adam Smith was a voice in the wilderness in his day. To shift the paradigm, some of us have to be willing to go off the mainstream intellectual grid for a little while. The good news is that doing so means leaving behind only a fringe intellectual elite -- and joining the people of the world.
When America hits bottom economically, movements and leaders will emerge that argue for war as a path to recovery: war against other countries, and war against immigrants and the poor. If no compelling movements and leaders emerge for economic transformation, the hate mongers will win because middleclass Americans will find nowhere else to turn for solutions. The path to the transformation will unfold globally, playing out differently in every country. Americans have a strong self interest in helping the global transformation to succeed as an early champion and contributor. Persuading the American people that the benefits of imperialism have run out may seem like a tough sell, but economic liberals face an even tougher sell over the long run.
The American public is finally listening to the diagnosis of realistic liberals like Reich now that the financial bubbles that masked our fundamental economic problems have burst. But do they have the patience for Reich's long road to redemption? No. While Americans support stimulus spending, infrastructure and education, they will never rally behind them as a cause. Why not? Because they're smart: they understand that those measures -- though very helpful -- won't rebuild our physical means of making a living, and will at best improve people's situations very gradually.
Incremental steps are only worth supporting if they're on a clear path to a better life. When people don't see the path, they'll withhold their energy from collective incremental steps and look out for their families instead. Today most Americans don't see a clear path in what's being offered by liberals, progressives or conservatives.
The Obama campaign briefly promised something different. Thousands of activists believed he was talking about fundamental change, and his very identity seemed to embody it. As soon as he started dealing in tired old liberal schemes, however, his movement disappeared overnight.
The "Tea Baggers" and other hardcore libertarians, on the other hand, take the rational self-preservation instinct and elevate it to the position of an ideology. Their response to dysfunctional national and international political communities is to give up on political community altogether, retreating to the family as the maximum unit of community. A large chunk of the left feels exactly the same way, but their maximum units of community are neighborhoods, locales and social networks. Against big plans, their motto is "Think Globally, Act Locally."
If we stay limited to those models of economic change, we're faced with two choices: the liberal economic approach of "be good and wait for capital to give you your job back;" and a purist libertarian (or localist communitarian) approach of "pull yourself (or your community) up by your bootstraps."
Both options ignore for ideological reasons the straight forward path of just going ahead and building a new economy: using our democratic political institutions to organize a system-wide, bottom-to-top economic transformation -- not waiting for it, not limiting it, but just doing it.
Even though talk of massive economic mobilization sounds unrealistic to liberal ears today, in reality it is the only thing that will ignite the people of the world -- especially the American people -- into action: It's the only course of action that will actually eliminate poverty, avert environmental catastrophe, and allow a fulfilling, comfortable living for humanity -- in this century, not 500 years from now.
Some of us need to start beating an intellectual path toward a movement that will fight for that transformation. Who wants to start?
This would seem to be a great subject for a seminar on the future of the economy, except that academic discussions aren't necessarily any better. People tend to want to show off how smart they are be going into ever more abstractly complex language.
Individual efforts to find new ways are fraught with the same problems that face any entrepreneurial departure from the conventional path. Solutions to the available dillemmas are not apparent and must be discovered by brave people who believe they are smart enough to step out onto thin ice.
Most people would rather contemplate this from the safety of a comfortable armchair with a warm cup of coffee. This gets left behind when it is time to go back to that corporate cubicle.
There really are opportunities to create a new economic way. They are, however, not easy to understand or find engagement with. Few people have a real handle on it, and fewer still are able to find a way to monetize their pioneering.
MoveOn is probably not a bad example, on the non-profit side.
"Rumpelstiltskin has left the building" now, but every single time he shows up anywhere, he's got an audience.
Charles Dickens did not have to look far to find a basis for his famous line about "surplus population."
The guy or gal who originally penned that, "the love of money is the root of all evil," was spot-on.
The Framers of our Constitution dreamed that by writing Article 2, Section 4 and putting it into their not-so easily revised document, they were making a carte-blanche prohibition against official corruption of any kind: one that would "stick," and that would be beyond reach. But I'll wager that they never considered: "well, what if they all just choose to ignore us?"
"Ignore us" we did. We don't call it "bribery." "Campaign contribution" and "lobbying" are much more acceptable. And the Supreme Court is quietly considering whether corporations (not mentioned even once in the Constitution) should have "freedom of $$peech." Yeah, right.
So now we have one of the most corrupt governments on earth. Capital is leaving us, not only because most of that capital is "made" of straw, but because we are no longer a government that SHOULD be followed by the wise.
bring Democracy to the USA.
That's step one.
The future is green energy, not dirty fossils.
the USA spend more on war than the rest of the world combined,
You bet we will have a say.
40 years of conservatism has brought the USA to it's knees, and you still rail against Progressives. Incredible.
Green energy as you call it needs to be adapted at a pace economies can absorb it, not get it rammed down your throat in the name of junk science. If green energy had any promise at all it would and should stand on its own merits. Right now, there are no viable green energy solutions available that provide the bang for the buck that fossil fuels give. Force it and you destroy the economy.
We the people of the U.S. need to know what we can count on.
2 things stopping investment in America.
Global Climate legislation and healthcare.
Global climate treaties could eliminate manufacturing completely. Maybe even rid us of the refineries and chemical plants. This would even make many people happy even though these are good paying jobs.
Healthcare: No mattter who is talking we do not know how healthcare legislation will turn out.
Global warming treaties and healthcare present 2 great unknowns. Who wants to invest in a country where rule changes may destroy before your business even gets off the ground.
Why not head to a 3rd world country where the rules maybe easier to understand and the labor is cheaper. Plus you may be getting big payments from the nations who are considered the great polluters.
My history teacher told us the stock market crash of 1929 happened for one reason. Though the variables for the crash were many there was one thought that was the real reason. Everyone lost confidence in the U.S. Plenty of people still had money but they hoarded their money instead of investing because they were unsure of what tomorrow would bring.
When the people with money understand where the U.S. is going then they will invest. Whether it will be here or in a 3rd world country is up for grabs.
1929 teaches us the un regulated speculative derivatives always crash.
times and again, we have let the wealth clot in the .1% klepocracy, only to see death and misery spread.
Time and again we have seen corruption and bribery destroy our democracy, but we still allow Bribes, euphemistically called "contributions" .
Time and again conservatives, a group dedicated to the destruction of democracy and Enlightenment, persuade the weak minded to act against their own best interests.
Time and again the good people, Dean, Kucinich are ridiculed and marginalized.
Wake up.
We may disagree on many things especially conservatives and liberals but I think we both wants our reps to represent us not lobbyists.
BTW the depression was caused by american protectionism. We added high tariffs to all imports.
What am I talking about when I say manufacturing could be eliminated. If global treaties force us to cut emissions by a considerable amount what manufacturing will we have.
What we do have is refineries and chemical plants. These will both move overseas if the wrong chord in climate treaties are struck.
Coal will be eliminated. Maybe even domestic oil production. We will start importing everything but natural gas.
Cars could become too expensive to drive for all but the rich.
Notice the number of limos and private planes at the climate summit in Denmark
What if we focused that, selecting specific areas to dominate? (Defined below)
How about we move to own these areas:
1. Nanotech R&D and manufacturing
2. Biotech R&D and manufacturing
3. Clean coal (we have a lot of coal)
4. Efficient solar (or take your pick, wave-power, wind...)
When I use words like 'own' and 'dominate' I mean that America invests in itself and owns, literally and exclusively, the resulting intellectual property and manufacturing. No licensing off-shore, no manufacturing off-shore. If we build it, we own it, and we should keep it as long as possible.
In short, even if you don't like those ideas, get a d*amn direction and move on it. All the general talk must stop.
America is not done yet. We're still the largest manufacturing economy and best-educated workforce today.
In an age of increased air travel and easy shipping, how can our Middle class even begin to compete with the cheap labor abroad?
Big companies are going to produce their products overseas and use the factories there. They aren't going to start building more here and raise wages.
Someone already mentioned "Mad Max" and I agree.
democratic free market capitalism with dynamically self-correcting laws and regulations that force the internalization of costs in net present value terms, based on foreward-looking best possible estimates.
Tax the greed away and fire irresponsible and ignorant behaviour. When done, repeat.
The same holds true for Latin America, Africa, and the rest of the world. A massive world-wide energy initiative away from oil will change the whole world for the better.
How can i be part of this change ?
It is abundantly clear that the 19 th and 20 th century solutions will not work,for the poor and middle class.
at the core of both systems is the primitive ,reptilian emotion of Greed !
"Greed is good "
Today's world needs a WE solution, based on our higher emotions.
"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them."
Albert Einstein
The Haves own the military and police, the Politicians and the Global leaders.
The Have-nots have the numbers.
Mad Max, Terminator, Shooter, all rolled into one.
The future is?
http://www.richmonk31.blogspot.com
The peaceful, full-equality, one-world-benevolent-government envisioned by Gene may seem just as utopian today as it did in the 60's... but remember, he envisioned all that coming about as a result of WWIII, the Eugenics Wars, and finally the realization that we were not alone in the universe. It came about because humanity had nearly destroyed itself through ever-growing stupidity, and was finally waking up to the idea that maybe there was a better way.
If things continue to progress the way they have been for the last century, I'm not sanguine about us avoiding something as devastating as a WWIII. It may not even have to come from anything as crude as that... we're well on our way to the same or worse end simply by destroying our environment. Or perhaps it will come from a complete and utter meltdown of the worldwide economy, sending billions into poverty, famine, disease, and early death.
Mad Max may be dystopic in the extreme, but Gene envisioned just such a total collapse before humans would wake up enough to realize it was well past time for something new. And sadly, as optimistic a person as I am, I'm beginning to believe humanity is just stubborn enough to require a hard knock on the head (and heart) to really "get it".